Scott argues that Viktor Orban's election loss doesn't vindicate him or disprove concerns about democratic backsliding, since autocrats can do many undemocratic things and still lose elections. Longer summary

Scott Alexander responds to commentary suggesting that Viktor Orban's recent election loss proves critics who called him authoritarian were overreacting. He argues that democracy versus dictatorship exists on a spectrum, and that Orban engaged in numerous undemocratic practices (media control, gerrymandering, phone tapping, etc.) even though he ultimately lost. Scott provides historical examples of dictators and autocrats who also lost elections (Pinochet, Milosevic, Putin, Chavez), showing that losing an election doesn't retroactively prove a leader wasn't undermining democracy. He concludes by connecting this to Trump, acknowledging he initially dismissed concerns about Trump threatening democracy but changed his mind after the 2020 election and January 6, and argues we shouldn't discard the "democratic backsliding" framework just because Orban lost. Shorter summary

A guest post arguing that ratifying the Congressional Apportionment Amendment from the original Bill of Rights would expand the House to 6,641 members and fix Congress by reducing gerrymandering, diluting donor influence, and increasing constituent accountability. Longer summary

This guest post by David Speiser argues for ratifying the Congressional Apportionment Amendment, the only unratified amendment from the original Bill of Rights, which would expand the House of Representatives from 435 to about 6,641 members by setting one representative per 50,000 citizens. The post explains how Congress's current dysfunction stems from gerrymandering, money in politics, and polarization, and argues that a much larger House would ameliorate these problems by making districts smaller and harder to gerrymander, diluting the influence of big donors, and forcing representatives to be more accountable to local constituents. The amendment has already been ratified by 11 states and needs 27 more, avoiding the problem that most Congressional reforms require Congressional approval. The post acknowledges a typo in the amendment's wording that could force an interesting legal battle between textualism and originalism, and ends with a pitch to state legislators explaining why both parties should support ratification. Shorter summary